May 2012 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: mshtml: Set outgoing pass-by-address variable in an error case case within confirm_safety_load.
by Jacek Caban July 18, 2012

July 18, 2012

Hi Gerald, On 03/07/12 23:35, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > I noticed we return in this case, without initializing this variable. > Visual inspection indicates we do not seem to access the variable in > this error case, but a) better safe than sorry, and b) GCC 4.8 currently > warns about it. > > Not sure URLPOLICY_DISALLOW is the best return value, open for better > alternatives. I generally don't think this patch makes things any better (or worse). If we return an error, the caller should not expect this value to be sane. What's the GCC 4.8 warning? Jacek

2 4

winebuild port to ARM?
by Roger Cruz July 7, 2012

July 7, 2012

Has anyone worked or is currently working on porting the x86 specific code in Winebuild to ARM? Specifically the relay.c file? Thanks Roger R. Cruz

2 9

1.4 has dropped off the list for AppDB submissions
by Rosanne DiMesio June 6, 2012

June 6, 2012

As of the release of 1.5.5, 1.4 has dropped off the list of Wine versions for which AppDB test reports can be submitted. Can someone please add it to the list of stable releases that are always available in the dropdown list? Until it's put back, users will not be able to submit new test reports for 1.4. We could avoid having this problem every time there's a new stable release if users were allowed to submit test reports for any version. Bugzilla lists every version, I don't see why the AppDB doesn't. -- Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>

2 2

Re: [1/3] user32/tests: Comment-out PostQuitMessage (causes tests skip)
by Dmitry Timoshkov May 31, 2012

May 31, 2012

sir-lexa <sir-lexa(a)yandex.ru> wrote: > case WM_DESTROY: > - PostQuitMessage(0); > + /* PostQuitMessage(0); It lets some tests to be skipped */ > return TRUE; This is not acceptable, there is much more behind the scene. You need to figure out the real reason of skipping the tests. -- Dmitry.

2 2

Re: [PATCH 3/5] ddraw/tests: Add test_coop_level_mode_set() for older ddraw versions.
by Marvin May 31, 2012

May 31, 2012

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=18687 Your paranoid android. === WNT4WSSP6 (32 bit ddraw2) === ddraw2.c:2282: Test failed: SetDipslayMode failed, hr 0x887600e1. ddraw2.c:2284: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw2.c:2310: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw2.c:2312: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600. ddraw2.c:2327: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw2.c:2338: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw2.c:2340: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600. ddraw2.c:2406: Test failed: SetDipslayMode failed, hr 0x887600e1. ddraw2.c:2408: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw2.c:2434: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw2.c:2436: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600. ddraw2.c:2451: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw2.c:2462: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw2.c:2464: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600. === WNT4WSSP6 (32 bit ddraw1) === ddraw1.c:2145: Test failed: SetDipslayMode failed, hr 0x887600e1. ddraw1.c:2147: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw1.c:2173: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw1.c:2175: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600. ddraw1.c:2190: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw1.c:2201: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw1.c:2203: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600. ddraw1.c:2269: Test failed: SetDipslayMode failed, hr 0x887600e1. ddraw1.c:2271: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw1.c:2297: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw1.c:2299: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600. ddraw1.c:2314: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw1.c:2325: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw1.c:2327: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600.

1 0

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ntdll/tests: Add tests for RtlGetProductInfo [resend]
by Alexandre Julliard May 31, 2012

May 31, 2012

Detlef Riekenberg <wine.dev(a)web.de> writes: > Clone the kernel32 tests to verify, that the NULL pointer > check is present in ntdll.dll That's not useful, it's clearly the same function, it doesn't need to be tested twice. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

Re: [PATCH 1/5] win16/int21: make found filename uppercase.
by Alexandre Julliard May 31, 2012

May 31, 2012

Oleksij Rempel <bug-track(a)fisher-privat.net> writes: > @@ -3961,6 +3962,8 @@ static int INT21_FindNext( CONTEXT *context ) > INT21_FindPath = dta->fullPath = NULL; > } > dta->count = n; > + p = dta->filename; > + for ( ; *p; p++) *p = toupper(*p); Using toupper is probably not a good idea on OEM codepage strings. Which app depends on this? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

3 4

Re: [4/4] windowscodecs: Add stub IWICMetadataBlockReader to PNG decoder.
by Marvin May 30, 2012

May 30, 2012

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=18675 Your paranoid android. === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit metadata) === metadata: unhandled exception c0000005 at 4CCA826D === W2K8SE (32 bit metadata) === metadata: unhandled exception c0000005 at 72C28045

1 0

Re: [3/4] windowscodecs: Add test for IWICMetadataBlockReader interface.
by Marvin May 30, 2012

May 30, 2012

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=18674 Your paranoid android. === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit metadata) === metadata: unhandled exception c0000005 at 4CCA826D === W2K8SE (32 bit metadata) === metadata: unhandled exception c0000005 at 72C28045

1 0

crypt32/tests(1/6): Don't shadow a variable with a variable of a different type
by Juan Lang May 30, 2012

May 30, 2012

--Juan

1 0